A Sickness Too Common to Cure?

The epidemic rages, but prevention is possible.

A serious disease has been escaping the attention of Americans lately. It is a direct cause of more than 25,000 preventable deaths each year. It ranks second in the number of victims, but next to the bottom per fatality in support for prevention or treatment. Further, it reduces life expectancy by at least a decade, and is responsible for battered women, abused children, broken homes, and impoverished families.

Also, as Harry Sayen points out in his column, “A Killer We Hide, Ignore, Joke About, but Don’t Handle Well,” it accounts for half the homicides and one-third the suicides. Finally, it ruthlessly and relentlessly destroys child stability.

Have these generally acknowledged facts led the medical and political world to declare an emergency? No.

Is this affliction concerned with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, mental retardation or disease? No.

We refer to alcoholism.

Sayan continues, “Alcoholism is still treated by most in a surreptitious, Victorian, under-the-rug, behind-the-chair, deep-in-a-closet, or kidding-oneself manner …”

The fact is, alcohol is the number two public health problem in America today, and it is getting more serious. Ten million Americans are alcoholics. Twenty million more consume immoderate amounts of alcohol and run a high risk of becoming alcoholics.

Seven of ten Americans use alcohol as a beverage, and the number has doubled in the last 25 years. One-third of those who call themselves evangelicals drink alcohol, as do half of all ministers. According to the National Council on Drug Abuse, alcohol and related problems cost our country over $40 billion per year. It estimates that alcohol causes or contributes indirectly to 205,000 deaths each year in the United States. One-quarter of all accidental deaths and one-half of all traffic fatalities are the direct result of alcohol abuse. And according to a recent University of Michigan study, people who drink, even in small amounts, run a three- to four-times greater risk of accidents.

One in five Americans admit to driving a car after drinking too much alcohol to drive safely. Forty-three percent of teen-agers who drink at all admit that they drive when they are incapable of handling an automobile safely. Alcohol is a major cause of divorce, of wife abuse, and of child molesting.

Study after study reveals that the clergyman is the first one to whom American alcoholics turn, outside their family, in times of trouble. Initially they go for pastoral care; then they turn to him for assistance in rehabilitation. And they expect him to lead the way in programs to prevent the occurrence of alcoholism.

Paul C. Conley and Andrew A. Sorenson write in The Staggering Steeple, “For most American alcoholics and their families, the local clergyman is the first professional who is asked for help.” They add, “The church’s most important task in relation to the problem of alcoholism is prevention. In this area it has a tremendous mother lode of practically untouched opportunity. Organized religion has direct contact with over half the people in the country. This is more than any other nongovernmental organization. Though a substantial share of the religious organizations in our country would undertake an enthusiastic and realistic program of prevention, America’s fourth largest public health problem (many now regard it as number one or two) could be brought under control and hundreds of thousands of people would be protected from becoming alcoholics.”

Unfortunately, most ministers, as well as Christian lay leaders and teachers, are not prepared to accept this responsibility. Too many do not feel free to speak out on this subject. No doubt they fear that too many in their own congregation would misinterpret what they say as a direct personal attack and be offended. Leaders who are total abstainers know that a third or more in their congregations engage in social drinking. They are simply unwilling to offend this large and rather sensitive group within the congregation. Ministers and Christian leaders who themselves use alcoholic beverages know that they, too, have slipped at one time, drinking more than was safe or good for them. They are therefore not inclined to be judgmental about the members of their congregation who are open to this danger—some of whom, no doubt, have made such a mistake within recent memory. The real alcoholics, moreover, are not usually regular attenders in the church service. If pastors or Christian witnesses give thought to speaking specifically to those who have a drinking problem, they usually conclude that it is more important to concentrate on the gospel or more fundamental aspects of Christian life. It certainly seems unwise to focus our witness on the occasional excesses of those to whom we are speaking. In any case, preaching and teaching against “that old demon rum” is seriously lacking in American churches today. The old demon, however, has not disappeared.

But what is really wrong with consuming alcohol? Two things, chiefly.

First, it is a mind-altering drug. The amount of alcohol one person can safely consume has always been a matter of hot debate. It is perfectly obvious that some human beings can drink more with less obvious effects than can others. But it is equally obvious that those who think they can drink more than others with no harm to themselves or their fellow citizens are just those who are most prone to drink more than they should. In its effect upon the mind, moreover, alcohol works most quickly as a depressant to eliminate restraints. The fine shades of moral restraint are among the first to become blurred. Further, split-second decisions and the quick neural reflexes leading to physical action become sluggish—as well as our judgment as to whether or not our critical faculties have been at all affected by our drinking.

The second problem is that alcohol is psychologically addictive. Unfortunately, we seldom know in advance who is likely to become addicted. But alcoholism can hit anyone, and who it hits, and when and where, is by no means immediately evident when one begins to drink alcoholic beverages. This is proved by the vast number of documented cases of those who have been drinking “responsibly” for decades, and who suddenly, in a crisis so gradual they are unaware that it is a crisis, become addicts and ultimately alcoholics.

There is no easy answer to the alcohol problem. The first thing evangelicals need to do is make up their minds whether they are “teetotalers” or “responsible drinkers.” For our part, we agree with Cynthia Parsons of the Christian Science Monitor (Nov. 3, 1980), and with Mormons, Muslims, and others who try to take their moral responsibility seriously, that in our society the only truly responsible position is abstinence. When a problem reaches the proportions we have noted, it demands radical solutions.

The biblical principle, “I will eat no meat if it makes my brother stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13), bears directly on such an issue. It is difficult to maintain responsibly that our fellow humans are not seriously stumbling over the alcohol problem.

Second, responsible Christian leaders must be willing to address the problem. They must be prepared to speak out forthrightly. In the recent past we have faced up to the problem so hesitantly and have spoken so mildly that people do not realize its dreadful seriousness. Uncertainty about teetotalism ought never deter us from speaking out against the situation we face today. When half our teen-agers consider this a major moral problem and when most Americans reckon it among the most serious problems facing the nation today, can the moral leaders of American churches continue to shut their eyes as though it did not exist?

Third, we must formulate a new strategy to deal with this blight. One-fifth of the American public think we ought to return to Prohibition. Most, including many evangelicals, believe Prohibition was a mistake. (But they do not fault it because it set a wrong goal or because it was tried and failed. It was never really tried, because in our pluralistic society too many Americans refused to obey and too many more took their disobedience lightly.) Reacting to what was perceived as a bad situation, evangelicals have pulled back from the issue, responded spasmodically to local crises, and, generally, closed their eyes to the problem.

But the problem has refused to go away. Morally concerned people must address it, and evangelicals need once again to provide moral leadership in meeting this frightful problem. Since we do not have any clear strategy on how to combat the evils of alcohol, we suggest that the best place to begin is with study groups and seminars to formulate such a strategy. These are no substitutes for action; but to strike off wildly in unplanned action is not good either. In addition to the suggestions set forth by George Gallup (see the article on page 27), we propose the following:

• Because alcoholism is a worldwide problem, we should seek to learn and profit from what evangelicals of other nations have done in terms of prevention, counsel, and treatment.

• We need to recognize that the problem is far greater in our evangelical churches than we have ever dared admit.

• We must provide solid biblical instruction with honest application to our own day. We must sharpen our Christian consciences to ask, “Is my drinking interfering in any way with either my worship and service to God or my love and ministry to my fellow humans?”

• As preachers and teachers, we must beware of riding a hobby of antialcoholism or any other moral or doctrinal issue, for this leads to a warped understanding of Christianity and is counterproductive.

• We must learn how to deal with the Christian who disagrees with us in the matter of beverage alcohol.

• We must foster in ourselves and in our congregations sympathetic understanding of someone who has a problem with alcohol; only in this way can we help him.

• As leaders, we must be willing to speak out frankly where moral issues are at stake, even though we know this may be an offense to some.

Interest in conservative Christianity is greatly increasing, and while evangelicals should rejoice in that, there is cause for concern. Secular news organizations frequently misunderstand what biblical Christianity is all about. Distorted news stories have become commonplace. Mostly, this is the inevitable result of the news media trying to report on a phenomenon with which they are not familiar, and to that extent the failing is understandable. But sometimes the bias is ill-hidden. We brought some of this to light in our September 4 issue on Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority. But more needs to be said.

First of all, we urge commentators who do not practice Christianity to exercise greater caution before they preach against it. Not every radio evangelist and not even every Sunday school teacher in established denominations represents something that is even remotely recognizable as historic Christianity.

In a recent article on fundamentalism, a history professor from William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, told his readers that as a southerner, the “old-time religion” had left its indelible imprint upon him, although he had drifted away from the faith. That was a manful admission. But then he proceeded to do what so many secular writers do: he pronounced sentence on Christians who do not abide by his personal version of Christ’s principles.

Of course, he had every right to do that; freedom of speech with the right to oppose what we believe to be wrong and harmful views, including wrong religious beliefs, is a precious heritage of American freedom. But as a responsible historian and journalist, he had a duty to distinguish between “the old-time religion” as traditional evangelical faith and what he remembers from one illiterate Sunday school teacher of his youth or what he heard over his local radio station last week.

People who have rejected the faith can, of course, recognize true Christian principles. But they often fail there. And we see too little evidence that they understand what evangelicalism is all about (or, for that matter, what fundamentalists really believe and teach).

Naturally, attacking bizarre statements made by some religionists makes more readable copy. And such silly views are far easier to refute. But that kind of editorial reporting neither encourages public confidence in the news media nor furthers the cause of truth.

We are saddened to observe such irresponsible journalism, especially when it amounts to anti-Christian bias in influential publications that profess to be nonpartisan in reporting the day’s events. Not long ago the Washington Post carried on its front page an article that began this way: “Creationism is back in the nation’s public schools, brought in by fundamentalists who have traded their black preachers’ hats for the white coats of scientists as they argue their case before school boards and state legislatures across the nation. The new costume is working.”

Now, we are not making a defense of every creationist cause on the market today. But journalism of that sort is misleading and offensive. If the case for scientific creationism can be made only by preachers, then it rightly belongs in religion classes only. But among the strongest proponents of scientific creationism are fully pedigreed scientists from varied physical disciplines. The trained scientists, not the preachers, are the ones who are making the best case for scientific creationism.

When the creationism trial in California was under way some months ago, the highly rated ABC-TV news program “Nightline” carried a debate on evolution between evangelist James Robison and astronomer Carl Sagan. As a matter of fact, Robison held up his end surprisingly well. But Robison and Sagan are trained in different disciplines, and it is to ABC’s discredit that they appeared in debate on the same program. If Sagan, an astronomer, is to be the spokesman for atheistic evolution, we suggest that he be matched with Robert Jastrow, who is also an astronomer and an experienced network television performer, but who has concluded from his own scientific observations that there is a God responsible for created order.

Jerry Falwell sometimes gives hostile reporters ample grounds for distortion. But it is nonetheless distortion, as our article on Falwell pointed out, and the public should not have to tolerate it. In an interview with CHRISTIANITY TODAY editors, Falwell was asked if the wrong things written about him were hurting his work. Definitely not, he said; nor would they so long as he can afford to buy television time in which he can speak directly to his people, bypassing the news media entirely. Falwell also said that he is convinced that the threat of a distorted picture is the reason President Reagan chose to present his economic program to the nation by means of an address to a joint session of Congress. By choosing that forum he was guaranteed live network television coverage, and thus he could speak directly to voters without depending on news reporting.

Neither Jerry Falwell selling biblical morality nor Ronald Reagan selling economic theory have any right to expect the news media to buy everything they propose. But they have every right to expect fair, impartial coverage. They do not trust the news media to provide it, so they have learned to circumvent them.

Finally, we are forced to caution Christians not to make decisions about important moral issues based on reports from the secular press, whether the issue be Moral Majority, abortion, creationism, sex education, prayer in schools, or any other matter rubbed raw by exposure to the press. Before deciding on these matters, Christians must get the facts. Public and school librarians are more than eager to help the inquirer find pro and con literature on all issues of general interest. If their library does not have such material, they are usually very willing to secure it. Evangelical magazines and journals are an excellent source, although each publication usually provides only material that supports its own editorial position.

In dealing with moral and religious issues of public interest, the local church carries a heavy responsibility, both to its own membership and to the surrounding community. Here is a short check list to test the performance of your church:

• Do you encourage your membership to keep abreast of important literature on current issues?

• Does your church library stock thoughtful publications that discuss controversial topics?

• Do you encourage your people to use the resources of your library? Of public and school libraries?

• Do your public and school libraries carry magazines and journals setting forth issues from the evangelical perspective? (Do your local libraries carry CHRISTIANITY TODAY, for example?)

• Do you invite professionally equipped people of evangelical conviction to address your congregation on moot issues of concern to the church?

• Do you encourage knowledgeable people in your own congregation to speak freely in public places regarding their convictions?

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.